Personal protective equipment (PPE) is a critical need during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alternative sources of surgical masks, including 3-dimensionally (3D) printed approaches that may be reused, are urgently needed to prevent PPE shortages. Few data exist identifying decontamination strategies to inactivate viral pathogens and retain 3D-printing material integrity.

To test viral disinfection methods on 3D-printing materials.

The viricidal activity of common disinfectants (10% bleach, quaternary ammonium sanitizer, 3% hydrogen peroxide, or 70% isopropanol and exposure to heat (50°C, and 70°C) were tested on four 3D-printed materials used in the healthcare setting, including a surgical mask design developed by the Veterans’ Health Administration. Inactivation was assessed for several clinically relevant RNA and DNA pathogenic viruses, including severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1).

SARS-CoV-2 and all viruses tested were completely inactivated by a single application of bleach, ammonium quaternary compounds, or hydrogen peroxide. Similarly, exposure to dry heat (70°C) for 30 minutes completely inactivated all viruses tested. In contrast, 70% isopropanol reduced viral titers significantly less well following a single application. Inactivation did not interfere with material integrity of the 3D-printed materials.

Several standard decontamination approaches effectively disinfected 3D-printed materials. These approaches were effective in the inactivation SARS-CoV-2, its surrogates, and other clinically relevant viral pathogens. The decontamination of 3D-printed surgical mask materials may be useful during crisis situations in which surgical mask supplies are limited.

To evaluate symptoms, workforce implications, and testing patterns related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the New York metropolitan area during spring 2020.

Retrospective cohort study of occupational health services (OHS) records.

A large, urban, academic medical center with 5 inpatient campuses and multiple ambulatory centers throughout Bronx and Westchester counties.

We included HCWs who called OHS to report COVID-19 symptoms and had either severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or IgG antibody testing.

We analyzed the impact of COVID-19–related symptoms on (1) time from symptom onset to return to work, (2) the results of SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR testing, and (3) the results of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody testing in HCWs with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

The median time from symptom onset until return to work for HCWs who did not require hospitalization was 15 days (interquartile range, 10–22). Shortness of breath, fever, sore throat, and diarrhea were significantly associated with longer durations from symptom onset to return to work. Among symptomatic HCWs who had PCR testing during the study period, 51.9% tested positive. Of the previously symptomatic HCWs who had IgG antibody testing, 55.4% had reactive tests. Ageusia was associated with having both positive PCR and reactive antibody tests. Sore throat was associated with both negative PCR and nonreactive antibody tests.

HCWs with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization still had prolonged illness. Shortness of breath, fever, sore throat, and diarrhea are associated with longer durations of time away from work.

Candida auris infections continue to occur across the United States and abroad, and healthcare facilities that care for vulnerable populations must improve their readiness to respond to this emerging organism. We aimed to identify and better understand challenges faced and lessons learned by those healthcare facilities who have experienced C. auris cases and outbreaks to better prepare those who have yet to experience or respond to this pathogen.

Semi-structured qualitative interviews.

Health departments, long-term care facilities, acute-care hospitals, and healthcare organizations in New York, Illinois, and California.

Infectious disease physicians and nurses, clinical and environmental services, hospital leadership, hospital epidemiology, infection preventionists, emergency management, and laboratory scientists who had experiences either preparing for or responding to C. auris cases or outbreaks.

In total, 25 interviews were conducted with 84 participants. Interviews were coded using NVivo qualitative coding software by 2 separate researchers. Emergent themes were then iteratively discussed among the research team.

Key themes included surveillance and laboratory capacity, inter- and intrafacility communication, infection prevention and control, environmental cleaning and disinfection, clinical management of cases, and media concerns and stigma.

Many of the operational challenges noted in this research are not unique to C. auris, and the ways in which we address future outbreaks should be informed by previous experiences and lessons learned, including the recent outbreaks of C. auris in the United States.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) requires that all faculty and staff receive the seasonal influenza vaccine annually or receive an approved vaccine exemption, either for a medical or deeply held religious or personal belief. We sought to understand the underlying principles behind these exemption requests and their interaction with a multidisciplinary exemption review process.

All of the personal and religious exemption requests at VUMC for 3 consecutive influenza seasons from 2015 to 2018 were analyzed, categorizing these requests by 1 of 12 standardized employee categories and 1 of 18 unique reasons for vaccine exemption.

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Healthcare personnel (HCP).

Among the 3 influenza seasons, 1.1%–2.1% of all VUMC HCP requested religious or personal exemption from vaccination. The frequency of religious and personal exemption approval increased annually from 296 of 452 (65.5%) to 196 of 248 (80.2%) to 283 of 323 (87.6%) over the 3 seasons, representing a statistically significant increase each year. Of the 5 most common reasons against vaccination, 4 were explicitly religious in nature; the most common reason was that the “body is a temple or sacred.” Nonclinical staff submitted the most religious and personal exemption requests of any job category, submitting approximately one-third of all requests every year.

These results demonstrate how detailed the personal or religious convictions behind vaccine avoidance can be among HCP and how vaccine avoidance stems from much more than simple misinformation regarding vaccination. The intersection between misinformation and personal or religious beliefs provides a unique opportunity to address HCP opinions toward vaccination in an exemption and appeals process like the one described here.

Cases of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. In this report, we describe 3 clusters of COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers (HCWs), not associated with patient exposure, and the interventions undertaken to halt ongoing exposure and transmission at our cancer center.

A cluster of cases was defined as 2 or more cases of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–positive COVID-19 among HCWs who work in the same unit area at the same time. Cases were identified by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. Contact tracing, facility observations, and infection prevention assessments were performed to investigate the 3 clusters between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with subsequent implementation of containment strategies.

The initial cluster involved HCWs from an ancillary services unit, with contacts traced back to a gathering in a break room in which 1 employee was symptomatic, although not yet diagnosed with COVID-19, with subsequent transmission to 7 employees. The second cluster involved 4 employees and was community related. The third cluster involved only 2 employees with possible transmission while working in the same office at the same time. A step-up approach was implemented to control the spread of infection among employees, including universal masking, enhanced cleaning, increase awareness, and surveillance testing. No nosocomial transmission to patients transpired.

To our knowledge, this is the first report of a hospital-based cluster of COVID-19 infections among HCWs in a cancer hospital describing our steps to mitigate further transmission.

To characterize associations between exposures within and outside the medical workplace with healthcare personnel (HCP) SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the effect of various forms of respiratory protection.

Case–control study.

We collected data from international participants via an online survey.

In total, 1,130 HCP (244 cases with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 886 controls healthy throughout the pandemic) from 67 countries not meeting prespecified exclusion (ie, healthy but not working, missing workplace exposure data, COVID symptoms without lab confirmation) were included in this study.

Respondents were queried regarding workplace exposures, respiratory protection, and extra-occupational activities. Odds ratios for HCP infection were calculated using multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analyses controlling for confounders and known biases.

HCP infection was associated with non–aerosol-generating contact with COVID-19 patients (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04–1.9; P = .03) and extra-occupational exposures including gatherings of ≥10 people, patronizing restaurants or bars, and public transportation (adjusted OR range, 3.1–16.2). Respirator use during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) was associated with lower odds of HCP infection (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2–0.8, P = .005), as was exposure to intensive care and dedicated COVID units, negative pressure rooms, and personal protective equipment (PPE) observers (adjusted OR range, 0.4–0.7).

COVID-19 transmission to HCP was associated with medical exposures currently considered lower-risk and multiple extra-occupational exposures, and exposures associated with proper use of appropriate PPE were protective. Closer scrutiny of infection control measures surrounding healthcare activities and medical settings considered lower risk, and continued awareness of the risks of public congregation, may reduce the incidence of HCP infection.

The pressures exerted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic pose an unprecedented demand on healthcare services. Hospitals become rapidly overwhelmed when patients requiring life-saving support outpace available capacities.

We describe methods used by a university hospital to forecast case loads and time to peak incidence.

We developed a set of models to forecast incidence among the hospital catchment population and to describe the COVID-19 patient hospital-care pathway. The first forecast utilized data from antecedent allopatric epidemics and parameterized the care-pathway model according to expert opinion (ie, the static model). Once sufficient local data were available, trends for the time-dependent effective reproduction number were fitted, and the care pathway was reparameterized using hazards for real patient admission, referrals, and discharge (ie, the dynamic model).

The static model, deployed before the epidemic, exaggerated the bed occupancy for general wards (116 forecasted vs 66 observed), ICUs (47 forecasted vs 34 observed), and predicted the peak too late: general ward forecast April 9 and observed April 8 and ICU forecast April 19 and observed April 8. After April 5, the dynamic model could be run daily, and its precision improved with increasing availability of empirical local data.

The models provided data-based guidance for the preparation and allocation of critical resources of a university hospital well in advance of the epidemic surge, despite overestimating the service demand. Overestimates should resolve when the population contact pattern before and during restrictions can be taken into account, but for now they may provide an acceptable safety margin for preparing during times of uncertainty.

Prolonged survival of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on environmental surfaces and personal protective equipment may lead to these surfaces transmitting this pathogen to others. We sought to determine the effectiveness of a pulsed-xenon ultraviolet (PX-UV) disinfection system in reducing the load of SARS-CoV-2 on hard surfaces and N95 respirators.

Chamber slides and N95 respirator material were directly inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 and were exposed to different durations of PX-UV.

For hard surfaces, disinfection for 1, 2, and 5 minutes resulted in 3.53 log10, >4.54 log10, and >4.12 log10 reductions in viral load, respectively. For N95 respirators, disinfection for 5 minutes resulted in >4.79 log10 reduction in viral load. PX-UV significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 on hard surfaces and N95 respirators.

With the potential to rapidly disinfectant environmental surfaces and N95 respirators, PX-UV devices are a promising technology to reduce environmental and personal protective equipment bioburden and to enhance both healthcare worker and patient safety by reducing the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

To describe epidemiologic and genomic characteristics of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in a large skilled-nursing facility (SNF), and the strategies that controlled transmission.

This cohort study was conducted during March 22–May 4, 2020, among all staff and residents at a 780-bed SNF in San Francisco, California.

Contact tracing and symptom screening guided targeted testing of staff and residents; respiratory specimens were also collected through serial point prevalence surveys (PPSs) in units with confirmed cases. Cases were confirmed by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was used to characterize viral isolate lineages and relatedness. Infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions included restricting from work any staff who had close contact with a confirmed case; restricting movement between units; implementing surgical face masking facility-wide; and the use of recommended PPE (ie, isolation gown, gloves, N95 respirator and eye protection) for clinical interactions in units with confirmed cases.

Of 725 staff and residents tested through targeted testing and serial PPSs, 21 (3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive: 16 (76%) staff and 5 (24%) residents. Fifteen cases (71%) were linked to a single unit. Targeted testing identified 17 cases (81%), and PPSs identified 4 cases (19%). Most cases (71%) were identified before IPC interventions could be implemented. WGS was performed on SARS-CoV-2 isolates from 4 staff and 4 residents: 5 were of Santa Clara County lineage and the 3 others were distinct lineages.

Early implementation of targeted testing, serial PPSs, and multimodal IPC interventions limited SARS-CoV-2 transmission within the SNF.

Gloves and gowns are used during patient care to reduce contamination of personnel and prevent pathogen transmission.

To determine whether the use of gowns adds a substantial benefit over gloves alone in preventing patient-to-patient transfer of a viral DNA surrogate marker.

In total, 30 source patients had 1 cauliflower mosaic virus surrogate marker applied to their skin and clothing and a second to their bed rail and bedside table. Personnel caring for the source patients were randomized to wear gloves, gloves plus cover gowns, or no barrier. Interactions with up to 7 subsequent patients were observed, and the percentages of transfer of the DNA markers were compared among the 3 groups.

In comparison to the no-barrier group (57.8% transfer of 1 or both markers), there were significant reductions in transfer of the DNA markers in the gloves group (31.1% transfer; odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.73) and the gloves-plus-gown group (25.9% transfer; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01–0.51). The addition of a cover gown to gloves during the interaction with the source patient did not significantly reduce the transfer of the DNA marker (P = .53). During subsequent patient interactions, transfer of the DNA markers was significantly reduced if gloves plus gowns were worn and if hand hygiene was performed (P < .05).

Wearing gloves or gloves plus gowns reduced the frequency of patient-to-patient transfer of a viral DNA surrogate marker. The use of gloves plus gowns during interactions with the source patient did not reduce transfer in comparison to gloves alone.

To analyze the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in workers of a hospital located in one of the most affected areas in Spain.

Cross-sectional study performed between March and May 2020 over all workers of a secondary hospital in Madrid, Spain.

We employed polymerase chain reaction (PCR, for symptomatic individuals) and serology (for both PCR-negative symptomatic workers and asymptomatic workers) as diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We analyzed the prevalence of the virus in healthcare workers (HCWs) and nonhealthcare workers (nHCWs). We also collected information about the use of personal protective equipment (PPEs) and possible contacts prior to infection.

In total, 2,963 workers were included: 1,092 were symptomatic, and of these, 539 were positive by PCR (49.4% of symptomatic workers). From the remaining symptomatic workers, 197 (35.6%) were positive by serology. Regarding asymptomatic workers, 345 were positive by serology (31.9% of infected workers). In total, 1,081 (36.5%) presented a positive diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2. Infection rates were different between HCWs (37.4%) and nHCWs (29.8%) (P = .006). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the use of PPE (protective: OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44–0.72; P < .001) and previous contact with COVID-19 patients (risk factor: OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.28–2.24; P < .001) were independent factors that were associated with SAS-CoV-2 infection.

Overall, >36% of our workers became infected with SARS-CoV-2, and the rate of asymptomatic infections accounted for almost 32% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections. We detected differences in the rates of infection between HCWs and nHCWs. The use of PPE and previous contact with COVID-19 patients were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A Canadian health authority implemented a multisectoral intervention designed to control severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during long-term care facility (LTCF) outbreaks. The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention 14 days after implementation.

Quasi-experimental, segmented regression analysis.

A series of outbreak measures classified into 4 categories: case and contact management, proactive case detection, rigorous infection control practices and resource prioritization and stewardship.

A mixed-effects segmented Poisson regression model was fitted to the incidence rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), calculated every 2 days, within each facility and case type (staff vs residents). For each facility, the outbreak time period was segmented into an early outbreak period (within 14 days of the intervention) and postintervention period (beyond 14 days following the intervention). Model outputs quantified COVID-19 incidence trend and rate changes between these 2 periods. A secondary model was constructed to identify effect modification by case type.

The significant upward trend in COVID-19 incidence rate during the early outbreak period (rate ratio [RR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.11; P < .001) reversed during the postintervention period (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67–0.80; P < .001). The average trend did not differ by case type during the early outbreak period (P > .05) or the postintervention period (P > .05). However, staff had a 70% larger decrease in the average rate of COVID-19 during the postintervention period than residents (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10–0.88; P < .05).

Our study provides evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in LTCFs. This intervention can be adapted and utilized by other jurisdictions to protect the vulnerable individuals in LTCFs.

Presenteeism is an expensive and challenging problem in the healthcare industry. In anticipation of the staffing challenges expected with the COVID-19 pandemic, we examined a decade of payroll data for a healthcare workforce. We aimed to determine the effect of seasonal influenza-like illness (ILI) on absences to support COVID-19 staffing plans.

Retrospective cohort study.

Large academic medical center in the United States.

Employees of the academic medical center who were on payroll between the years of 2009 and 2019.

Biweekly institutional payroll data was evaluated for unscheduled absences as a marker for acute illness-related work absences. Linear regression models, stratified by payroll status (salaried vs hourly employees) were developed for unscheduled absences as a function of local ILI.

Both hours worked and unscheduled absences were significantly related to the community prevalence of influenza-like illness in our cohort. These effects were stronger in hourly employees.

Organizations should target their messaging at encouraging salaried staff to stay home when ill.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has significant implications for hospital infection prevention and control, discharge management, and public health. We reviewed available literature to reach an evidenced-based consensus on the expected duration of viral shedding.

We queried 4 scholarly repositories and search engines for studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding dynamics by PCR and/or culture available through September 8, 2020. We calculated the pooled median duration of viral RNA shedding from respiratory and fecal sources.

The review included 77 studies on SARS-CoV-2. All studies reported PCR-based testing and 12 also included viral culture data. Among 28 studies, the overall pooled median duration of RNA shedding from respiratory sources was 18.4 days (95% CI, 15.5–21.3; I2 = 98.87%; P < .01). When stratified by disease severity, the pooled median duration of viral RNA shedding from respiratory sources was 19.8 days (95% CI, 16.2–23.5; I2 = 96.42%; P < .01) among severely ill patients and 17.2 days (95% CI, 14.0–20.5; I2 = 95.64%; P < .01) in mild-to-moderate illness. Viral RNA was detected up to 92 days after symptom onset. Viable virus was isolated by culture from −6 to 20 days relative to symptom onset.

SARS-COV-2 RNA shedding can be prolonged, yet high heterogeneity exists. Detection of viral RNA may not correlate with infectivity since available viral culture data suggests shorter durations of shedding of viable virus. Additional data are needed to determine the duration of shedding of viable virus and the implications for risk of transmission.

In response to the 2013–2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak, the US government designated certain healthcare institutions as Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) to better prepare for future emerging infectious disease outbreaks. This study investigated ETC experiences and critical care policies for patients with viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF).

A 58-item questionnaire elicited information on policies for 9 critical care interventions, factors that limited care provision, and innovations developed to deliver care.

The questionnaire was sent to 82 ETCs.

We analyzed ordinal and categorical data pertaining to the ETC characteristics and descriptive data about their policies and perceived challenges. Statistical analyses assessed whether ETCs with experience caring for VHF patients were more likely to have critical care policies than those that did not.

Of the 27 ETCs who responded, 17 (63%) were included. Among them, 8 (47%) reported experience caring for persons under investigation or confirmed cases of VHF. Most felt ready to provide intubation, chest compressions, and renal replacement therapy to these patients. The factors most cited for limiting care were staff safety and clinical futility. Innovations developed to better provide care included increased simulation training and alternative technologies for procedures and communication.

There were broad similarities in critical care policies and limitations among institutions. There were several interventions, namely ECMO and cricothyrotomy, which few institutions felt ready to provide. Future studies could identify obstacles to providing these interventions and explore policy changes after increased experience with novel infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.

In this study, we aimed to capture perspectives of healthcare workers (HCWs) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures implemented during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A cross-sectional survey of HCWs.

HCWs from the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.

A self-administered survey was distributed to HCWs. We analyzed factors influencing HCW knowledge and self-reported use of personal protective equipment (PPE), concerns about contracting COVID-19 and acceptance of the recommended IPAC precautions for COVID-19.

In total, 175 HCWs completed the survey between March 6 and March 10: 35 staff physicians (20%), 24 residents or fellows (14%), 72 nurses (41%), 14 respiratory therapists (8%), 14 administration staff (8%), and 14 other employees (8%). Most of the respondents were from the emergency department (n = 58, 33%) and the intensive care unit (n = 58, 33%). Only 86 respondents (50%) identified the correct donning order; only 60 (35%) identified the correct doffing order; but the majority (n = 113, 70%) indicated the need to wash their hands immediately prior to removal of their mask and eye protection. Also, 91 (54%) respondents felt comfortable with recommendations for droplet and/or contact precautions for routine care of patients with COVID-19. HCW occupation and concerns about contracting COVID-19 outside work were associated with nonacceptance of the recommendations (P = .016 and P = .036 respectively).

As part of their pandemic response plans, healthcare institutions should have ongoing training for HCWs that focus on appropriate PPE doffing and discussions around modes of transmission of COVID-19.

Evaluation of a mandatory immunization program to increase and sustain high immunization coverage for healthcare personnel (HCP).

Descriptive study with before-and-after analysis.

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Medical center HCP.

A comprehensive mandatory immunization initiative was implemented in 2 phases, starting in July 2014. Key facets of the initiative included a formalized exemption review process, incorporation into institutional quality goals, data feedback, and accountability to support compliance.

Both immunization and overall compliance rates with targeted immunizations increased significantly in the years after the implementation period. The influenza immunization rate increased from 80% the year prior to the initiative to >97% for the 3 subsequent influenza seasons (P < .0001). Mumps, measles and varicella vaccination compliance increased from 94% in January 2014 to >99% by January 2017, rubella vaccination compliance increased from 93% to 99.5%, and hepatitis B vaccination compliance from 95% to 99% (P < .0001 for all comparisons). An associated positive effect on TB testing compliance, which was not included in the mandatory program, was also noted; it increased from 76% to 92% over the same period (P < .0001).

Thoughtful, step-wise implementation of a mandatory immunization program linked to professional accountability can be successful in increasing immunization rates as well as overall compliance with policy requirements to cover all recommended HCP immunizations.